Suchergebnisse

This project seeks to examine the ways in which the media of Holocaust photography and videography are represented in museums in Canada and Germany. Specifically, this project analyzes the Topography of Terror (Berlin), the Canadian Museum for Human Rights (Winnipeg), and the German Military History Museum (Dresden). The media of video- and photography are integral to a comparative examination of the intentional and unintentional effects and knowledge produced by these museums, since both media tend to be seen as more 'authentic' than text and remain somewhat outside the control of the museums; photographs and videos are often more than just a mouthpiece for museal goals. In order to adequately compare these representations in each of the three museums, they are analyzed simultaneously through the lens of distance and proximity between visitor and subject, and whether one is able to feel empathy for historical persons (and with whom) or not. ; October 2016

After 9/11, President George W. Bush authorized the creation of military tribunals to try those who assisted in the terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington, DC. His military order closely tracked the model established by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who appointed a military tribunal in 1942 to try eight German saboteurs. In Ex parte Quirin (1942), the Supreme Court unanimously upheld Roosevelt's tribunal. The Bush administration relies heavily on this judicial precedent, but military tribunals in U.S. history have generally been hostile to civil liberties, procedural due process, and elementary standards of justice.

Reviewed: The Iraq War: Strategy, Tactics, and Military Lessons, by Anthony H. Cordesman, and The Iraq War: A Military History, by Williamson Murray and Major General Robert H. Scales ; The United States and its allies went to war against Iraq in 2003, as Williamson Murray and Robert Scales reasonably propose, "to make an example out of Saddam's regime, for better or worse" (p. 44). Exactly what the war exemplified, and whether the results are better or worse than might have been achieved by other means, are, to say the least, matters of continuing dispute. In the meantime, we might as well start getting the facts straight, at least as far as military operations are concerned. The two books above are both contributions to that necessary work. They are exercises in bridge-building, reaching forward from wartime journalism and postwar postmortems to the more mature scholarship of the future. Given the time pressure under which they were prepared, they are far better than anyone would have had reason to expect.

This article outlines a conceptual framework to analyse the norms and values influencing the behaviour of soldiers in the past. It will argue that military culture is a specific form of institutional culture and that viewing armies from this perspective offers new insight into how they functioned and the nature of their interaction with state and society. It also addresses definitions of militarism, arguing that these generally blur distinctions between cultural and material factors. By disassociating military culture from particular forms of rule or modes of production, it can be studied in societies where it has been forgotten or hidden in the historical memory.

Strategy has existed as long as there has been organised conflict. In this new account, Jeremy Black explores the ever-changing relationship between purpose, force, implementation and effectiveness in military strategy and its dramatic impact on the development of the global power system. Taking a 'total' view of strategy, Black looks at leading powers - notably the United States, China, Britain and Russia - in the wider context of their competition and their domestic and international strengths. Ranging from France's Ancien Regime and Britain's empire building to present day conflicts in the Middle East, Black devotes particular attention to the strategic practice and decisions of the Kangxi Emperor, Clausewitz, Napoleon and Hitler

As military commissions have been revived in the wake of the attacks of September 11,2001, interest has grown in the history of the institution. The United States Supreme Court, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, sketched out some historical notes and set forth a tripartite division between law-of-war commissions, martial law commissions, and occupation tribunals. Various authors have advanced insights on this history, though most have focused on the prominent episodes, particularly the handful of Supreme Court cases. Even the most comprehensive article gives short shrift to the massive employment of commissions in the Reconstruction era and in postwar Germany. This essay attempts to advance the cause by sketching out the entire scope of the institution's history and indicating what further research would have to be done to arrive at a truly comprehensive treatment. A basic difficulty is that the work product of military commissions is not encompassed in a series of trial reports like the Federal Supplement or the military's own Court-Martial Reports. A handful of cases wound up in the Supreme Court and another half dozen stood out enough to attract historians' interest. Otherwise, commission proceedings are memorialized, if at all, only in military general orders and records of trials that were maintained in the Office of the Judge Advocate General. I have explored the records pertaining to commissions in the Reconstruction period following the Civil War in anticipation of writing a comprehensive article. It is a difficult and time-consuming task. To complete the picture, similar pick-and-shovel work would have to be done on such extensive use of the commission as occurred in Germany after World War II. Both the Civil War-Reconstruction period and the German occupation produced thousands of trials.